PEOPLE VS DIAZ
GR No. 112175
26 July 1996
FACTS: Three women (Navarro, Fabricante, and Ramirez) were enrolled at the Henichi Techno
Exchange Cultural Foundation in Davao City, studying Niponggo, when they were informed by their
teacher, Mrs. Aplicador, that she knew of a Mr. Paulo Lim who also knew of one Engineer Erwin Diaz who
was recruiting applicants for Brunei.
Accompanied by Mrs. Aplicador, the three women went to Mr. Lim who told them that his children had
already applied with Engr. Diaz. The four women were then accompanied by Mr. Lim to the CIS Detention
Center where Engr. Diaz was already being detained. After Navarro and Ramirez had already given 20k
as placement fee, Fabricante went to the office of the POEA and found out the Engr. Diaz was not
licensed. Fabricante informed the two women about her discovery and they all withdrew their
applications. Engr. Diaz refunded their payments.
The trial court held Engr. Diaz guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.
ISSUE: WON Diaz was engaged in illegal recruitment.
HELD: YES. Diaz was neither a licensee nor a holder of authority to qualify him to lawfully engage in
recruitment and placement activity. Appellant told the three women that he was recruiting contract
workers for abroad, particularly Brunei, and promised them job opportunities if they can produce various
amounts of money for expenses and processing of documents. He manifestly gave the impression to the
three women that he had the ability to send workers abroad. Misrepresenting himself as a recruiter of
workers for Brunei, he promised them work for a fee and convinced them to give their money for the
purpose of getting an employment overseas.
PEOPLE VS CHUA
GR NO. 128280
APRIL 4, 2001
FACTS: Chua was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment committed in large scale
for recruiting and promising work in Taiwan to 9 people, without a license. According to Chua, she
received a call from Taiwan informing her that some people were needed so she called several people
and collected money but the placement in Taiwan never materialized. The POEA issued a certification
that Chua was not licensed to recruit persons/ workers for overseas employment. Chua argues that she
had an approved application for a service contractor’s authority. But the records show that she failed to
comply with post –licensing requirements.
ISSUE: WON Chua was licensed to recruit workers for overseas work.
HELD: The SC held that Chua wasn’t licensed to perform recruiting activities. The records show that the
license was not issued due to her failure to comply with post-licensing requirements. It is the issuance of
the license which makes the holder thereof authorized to perform recruitment activates. The law
specifically provides that ―every license shall be valid for at least 2 years from the date of issuance unless
sooner canceled or revoked by the Secretary. Chua admitted herself that she wasn’t licensed when she
replied to the Taiwan Company.
PEOPLE VS MERIS
GR NO. 11745-7447
MARCH 28, 2000
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. She contends that
her conviction was erroneous because the court never acquired jurisdiction over her person, as her arrest was illegal, and
that the prosecution failed to establish estafa.
ISSUE: WON Accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment
HELD: YES. Accused-appellant’s contention that she was a mere applicant and eventually a victim like
complainants holds no water. Note should be made of the fact that throughout the trial of the case, no
mention was made that accused-appellant exerted any effort to seek a refund for her money nor did she
file a case against Julie Micua, her alleged victimizer. Her only excuse was that at the time of the filing of
the complaint in Manila, she was confused and the investigating officer would not listen to her side of the
controversy. Moreover, accused-appellant and her husband’s acts of receiving almost all the payments of
the complainants and issuing receipts signed by Julie Micua contradict her claim of being a mere
applicant. There were even times that accused-appellant herself signed the receipts for the placement
[23]
fees. Taken as a whole, the evidence shows that accused-appellant conspired and actively participated
in the deceitful plan adopted by her co-accused Julie Micua, Rico Cordova and her own husband, Renato
Meris, to hire without license or authority, gullible and naïve applicants for non-existent overseas jobs.
DARVIN VS CA
G.R. No. 125044
July 13, 1998
FACTS: Imelda Darvin was convicted of simple illegal recruitment under the Labor Code by the RTC. It
stemmed from a complaint of one Macaria Toledo who was convinced by the petitioner that she has the
authority to recruit workers for abroad and can facilitate the necessary papers in connection thereof. In
view of this promise, Macaria gave her P150,000 supposedly intended for US Visa and air fare.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto, hence this petition.
ISSUE:WON appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal recruitment.
HELD: Art. 38 of the Labor Code provides:
a.)Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 43 of the Labor
Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code.
Applied to the present case, to uphold the conviction of accused-appellant, two elements need to be
shown: (1) the person charged with the crime must have undertaken recruitment activities: and (2) the
said person does not have a license or authority to do so.
In the case, the Court found no sufficient evidence to prove that accused-appellant offered a job
to private respondent. It is not clear that accused gave the impression that she was capable of providing
the private respondent work abroad. What is established, however, is that the private respondent gave
accused-appellant P150,000.By themselves, procuring a passport, airline tickets and foreign visa for
another individual, without more, can hardly qualify as recruitment activities. Aside from the testimony of
private respondent, there is nothing to show that appellant engaged in recruitment activities.
At best, the evidence proffered by the prosecution only goes so far as to create a suspicion that
appellant probably perpetrated the crime charged. But suspicion alone is insufficient, the required
quantum of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the People’s evidence fail to
indubitably prove the accused’s authorship of the crime of which he stand accused, then it is the Court’s
duty, and the accused’s right, to proclaim his innocence.
ROYAL CROWN INTERNATIONALE VS NLRC
GR NO. 78085
OCTOBER 16, 1989
FACTS: Petitioner, a duly licensed private employment agency, recruited and deployed private
respondent Virgilio for employment with ZAMEL as an architectural draftsman in Saudi Arabia. Service
agreement was executed by private respondent and ZAMEL whereby the former was to receive per
month a salary of US$500.00 plus US$100.00 as allowance for a period of one year commencing from
the date of his arrival in Saudi Arabia. However, ZAMEL terminated the employment of private
respondent on the ground that his performance was below par. For three successive days thereafter, he
was detained at his quarters and was not allowed to report to work until his exit papers were ready. On
February 16, 1984, he was made to board a plane bound for the Philippines. Private respondent then filed
a complaint for illegal termination against Petitioner Royal Crown Internationale and ZAMEL with the
POEA.
Petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Labor Code, or the omnibus rules implementing the
same, which either provides for the "third-party liability" of an employment agency or recruiting entity for
violations of an employment agreement performed abroad, or designates it as the agent of the foreignbased employer for purposes of enforcing against the latter claims arising out of an employment
agreement. Therefore, petitioner concludes, it cannot be held jointly and severally liable with ZAMEL for
violations, if any, of private respondent's service agreement.
ISSUE: WON petitioner as a private employment agency may be held jointly and severally liable with the
foreign-based employer for any claim which may arise in connection with the implementation of the
employment contracts of the employees recruited and deployed abroad.
HELD: Yes, Petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact that it had voluntarily assumed solidary liability
under the various contractual undertakings it submitted to the Bureau of Employment Services. In
applying for its license to operate a private employment agency for overseas recruitment and placement,
petitioner was required to submit, among others, a document or verified undertaking whereby it assumed
all responsibilities for the proper use of its license and the implementation of the contracts of employment
with the workers it recruited and deployed for overseas employment. It was also required to file with the
Bureau a formal appointment or agency contract executed by the foreign-based employer in its favor to
recruit and hire personnel for the former, which contained a provision empowering it to sue and be
sued jointly and solidarily with the foreign principal for any of the violations of the recruitment
agreement and the contracts of employment. Petitioner was required as well to post such cash and surety
bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance with prescribed recruitment
procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of employment as appropriate. These
contractual undertakings constitute the legal basis for holding petitioner, and other private employment or
recruitment agencies, liable jointly and severally with its principal, the foreign-based employer, for all
claims filed by recruited workers which may arise in connection with the implementation of the service
agreements or employment contracts.
CATAN VS NLRC
GR. NO. 77279
APRIL 15, 1988
FACTS: The Petitioner, a duly licensed recruitment agency, as agent of Ali and Fahd Shabokshi Group, a
Saudi Arabian firm, recruited private respondent to work in Saudi Arabia as a steel man. The contract was
automatically renewed when private respondent was not repatriated by his Saudi employer but instead
was assigned to work as a crusher plant operator. On March 30, 1983, while he was working as a crusher
plant operator, private respondent's right ankle was crushed under the machine he was operating. On
September 9, 1983, he returned to Saudi Arabia to resume his work. On May 15,1984, he was
repatriated. Upon his return, he had his ankle treated for which he incurred further expenses.
ISSUE: WON this was grounds for cancellation or suspension of license or authority of M. S. Catan
Placement Agency.
HELD: Yes, Power of the agency to sue and be sued jointly and solidarily with the principal or foreignbased employer for any of the violations of the recruitment agreement and the contracts of
employment.[Section 10(a) (2) Rule V, Book I, Rules to Implement the Labor Code. The Court ruled that a
recruitment agency was solidarily liable for the unpaid salaries of a worker it recruited for employment in
Saudi Arabia. Even if indeed petitioner and the Saudi principal had already severed their agency
agreement at the time private respondent was injured, petitioner may still be sued for a violation of the
employment contract because no notice of the agency agreement's termination was given to the private
respondent.
PEOPLE VS CALONZO
GR NOS. 115150-55
SEPTEMBER 27, 1996
FACTS: Reydante Calonzo Y Ambrosio was charged with illegal recruitment in large scale and 5 counts
of estafa by Brenando Miranda, Danilo de los Reyes, Elmer Clamor, Belarmino Torregrosa and Hazel de
Paula. The complainants recounted that they met the accused-appellant who was then employed inR.A.C
Business Agency and offered to them employment in Italy. The accused was glib and persuasive that
they were lured to give payment for the processing of their application for work in Italy. The accusedappellant was able to send the complainants to Bangkok and were brought to P.S Guest Hotel. While in
Bangkok, the complainants again gave additional amounts to the accused. However, they only remain in
Bangkok and the promise of employment in Italy was not fulfilled. Upon return to the Philippines, the
complainants verified from POEA to which the latter issued a certification that the accused and R.A.C
Business Agency were not licensed to recruit workers for overseas employment. As for his part, accusedappellant denies involvement in any recruitment activities.
ISSUE: WON accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment committed in large scale.
HELD: Yes, Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when a person "(a) undertakes any recruitment
activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code; (b) does not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers; and (c) commits the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group."The above
requisites to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale are present in this case, the testimony of
complainants evidently showed that Calonzo was engaged in recruitment activities in large
scale. Firstly, he deluded complainants into believing that jobs awaited them in Italy by distinctly
impressing upon them that he had the facility to send them for work abroad. He even showed them his
passport to lend credence to his claim. To top it all, he brought them to Bangkok and not to Italy. Neither
did he have any arrangements in Bangkok for the transfer of his recruits to Italy. Secondly, POEA likewise
certified that neither Calonzo nor R.A.C. Business Agency was licensed to recruit workers for employment
abroad. Appellant admitted this fact himself. Thirdly, appellant recruited five (5) workers thus making the
crime illegal recruitment in large scale constituting economic sabotage.
SALAZAR VS ACHACOSO AND MARQUEZ
GR NO. 81510
SEPTEMBER 27, 1996
FACTS: On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro of 177 Tupaz Street, Leveriza, Pasay City, in a sworn
statement filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration charged petitioner Hortencia
Salazar with illegal recruitment. On January 26, 1988 POEA Director on Licensing and Regulation Atty.
Estelita B. Espiritu issued an office order designating respondents Atty. Marquez, Atty. Jovencio Abara
and Atty. Ernesto Vistro as members of a team tasked to implement Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205.
Doing so, the groupassisted by Mandaluyong policemen and media men Lito Castillo of the People's
Journal and Ernie Baluyot of News Today proceeded to the residence of the petitioner at 615 R.O. Santos
St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. There it was found that petitioner was operating Hannalie Dance Studio.
Before entering the place, the team served said Closure and Seizure order on a certain Mrs. Flora
Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the premises. Mrs. Flora Salazar informed the team that
Hannalie Dance Studio was accredited with Moreman Development (Phil.). However, when required to
show credentials, she was unable to produce any. Inside the studio, the team chanced upon twelve talent
performers—practicing a dance number and saw about twenty more waiting outside, The team
confiscated assorted costumes which were duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and witnessed
by Mrs. Flora Salazar.
ISSUE: WON the POEA had jurisdiction to validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or arrest) under
Article 38 of the Labor Code.
HELD: No. We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or
arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL and null and
void. The respondents are ORDERED to return all materials seized as a result of the implementation of
Search and Seizure Order No. 1205
SUNACE INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC
480 SCRA 146
JANUARY 25, 2006
FACTS: Respondent Divina Montehermozo is a domestic helper deployed to Taiwan by Sunace
International Management Services (Sunace) under a 12-month contract. Such employment was made
with the assistance of Taiwanese broker Edmund Wang. After the expiration of the contract,
Montehermozo continued her employment with her Taiwanese employer for another 2 years.
When Montehermozo returned to the Philippines, she filed a complaint against Sunace, Wang, and her
Taiwanese employer before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). She alleges that she was
underpaid and was jailed for three months in Taiwan. She further alleges that the 2-year extension of her
employment contract was with the consent and knowledge of Sunace. Sunace, on the other hand, denied
all the allegations.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Montehermozo and found Sunace liable thereof. The National Labor
Relations Commission and Court of Appeals affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision. Hence, the filing of this
appeal.
ISSUE: WON the 2-year extension of Montehermozo’s employment was made with the knowledge and
consent of Sunace
HELD: The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent, Sunace, to the principal,
employer, not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot, therefore,
be imputed to its agent Sunace.
There being no substantial proof that Sunace knew of and consented to be bound under the 2-year
employment contract extension, it cannot be said to be privy thereto. As such, it and its "owner" cannot be
held solidarily liable for any of Montehermozo’s claims arising from the 2-year employment extension. As
the New Civil Code provides, Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns, and heirs,
except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their
nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. Furthermore, as Sunace correctly points out, there was an
implied revocation of its agency relationship with its foreign principal when, after the termination of the
original employment contract, the foreign principal directly negotiated with Montehermozo and entered
into a new and separate employment contract in Taiwan. Article 1924 of the New Civil Code states that
the agency is revoked if the principal directly manages the business entrusted to the agent, dealing
directly with third persons.